DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-20 are objected to because they include the status identifier "Currently amended" or "Original" when they should be labeled as "Withdrawn" because they are non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation "a first baffle positioned within the chamber" and “a second baffle positioned within the chamber” in lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the chamber” in the claim. The claim only establishes “a first chamber” and “a second chamber”; there is no single “the chamber” for these limitations to refer back to. It is unclear whether “the chamber” means the first chamber, the second chamber, or some undefined interior volume of the housing.
Claim 7 recites “wherein said second baffle is oriented horizontally and separates said first and second chambers into two vertically distinct portions.” This directly conflicts with claim 1, which already treats the first and second chambers as separately defined, pre-existing volumes with the second baffle merely positioned between them. Claim 7 instead implies the second baffle is what divides a single chamber into “first” and “second chamber” portions. This creates ambiguity as to the metes and bounds of “first chamber” and “second chamber” as used throughout the claim set.
Claims 8 and 13 recites, “said chamber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 14 contains the trademark/trade name “General Motors L5P Duramax engine”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe structure and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the first opening is configured to cover the first aperture in the cylinder head" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first aperture” in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein the ventilation box and fill tube are configured to interface with a General Motors L5P Duramax engine" in lines 1-2. Claim 10 from which claim 14 depends introduces a “fill neck” never a “fill tube.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “fill tube” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanakumar et al. U.S. Pub. No. 8011338 B2, September 06, 2011 (hereinafter “Narayanakumar”) in view of Ding CN 201507335 U, June 16, 2010 (hereinafter “Ding”).
Regarding claim 1, Narayanakumar discloses an oil separator (201) for an internal combustion engine (10) comprising a crankcase (68), a cylinder head (94), and an air intake system (fig. 2; intake manifold 44; col. 3 lines 15-30). The oil separator is mounted on and supported by the cylinder head and comprises an upper cam cover (202) and lower baffle plate assembly (204), which together define an oil separation chamber (206) (figs. 2-3; col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 5; col. 5, lines 1-26). Narayanakumar discloses that blow-by gases pass from the crankcase through internal passages in the cylinder head into the oil separation chamber through a PCV inlet (69), transverse the separator, and exit through PCV outlet (230) to the engine intake system (figs. 2-3; col. 5, lines 20-48). Narayanakumar further discloses a plurality of stationary baffles (208) positioned within the separator chamber to create a tortuous flow path for separating oil from crankcase gases before discharge to the intake (figs. 3-5; col. 2, lines 60-65). Narayanakumar discloses that a PCV pipe connection 230 may connect to a compressor inlet tube of the turbocharger, which in turn transfers blowby gas and air to the intake manifold (col. 6, lines 45-50). Claim 3 of Narayanakumar expressly claims this configuration on “gasoline-fueled turbocharged two-bank direct injected engine,” confirming the disclosed engine includes a turbo charger and air intake system as recited in the preamble of claim 1 (col. 10, lines 18-20).
Narayanakumar discloses that the cam cover (202) is mounted on and substantially covers the cylinder head (94), sealed by a perimeter gasket along the flange (218), such that the cam cover housing is configured to cover the passage/aperture in the cylinder head through which blow-by gases enter (fig. 3; col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 5). The lower baffle plate assembly (204) includes a plurality of baffles (208) positioned between the cam cover and the cylinder head, each baffle comprising a first baffle plate and a second baffle plate (334) arranged in series within the oil separation chamber (figs. 3-5; col. 6 line 60 – col.7, line 20). Each baffle plate defines a plurality of through holes (338), and the blow-by gas is forced through the through-holes of the first and second baffle plates in sequence, undergoing multiple impactions against the plates before the separated gas exits to the intake system (col. 7, lines 39-56).
However, Narayanakumar fails to disclose that the ventilation box housing defines a first chamber and a second chamber, nor a first opening and a second opening that each provide access to the first chamber together with a third opening that provides access to the second chamber in the particular arrangement recited.
Ding discloses a crank case oil-gas separation structure mounted between an oil baffle plate (2) and a camshaft cover housing (1), in which the housing defines two-separated oil-gas flow paths (chambers), each provided with its own pair of staggered baffle plates (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). The oil baffle plates define crescent -shaped oil-gas entry opening (21, 22), one for each flow path/chamber (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). The first flow path (first chamber) additionally communicates with a pair of oil-return openings (5), positioned at opposite ends of the oil baffle plate, providing a second point of access to that same chamber, while its down stream end (6) connects to the engine’s air filter (figs. 2-4; paragraph 0021-0022). The second, separate flow path (second chamber) communicates through its own opening at downstream end (7) to a PCV valve leading to the intake manifold (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). Within each chamber, a first baffle plate (31/41) and a second baffle plate (32/42), each defining multiple through-holes, are positioned in series and staggered relative to one another (paragraphs 0020, 0023; figs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single chamber cam cover oil separator of Narayanakumar to instead define two separated chambers, each accessed by their own dedicated opening(s) and each transversed in series by a first and second baffle as taught by Ding. Ding teaches that dividing the flow into separate, independently baffled chambers, each with its own inlet/outlet arrangement, improves efficiency by tailoring the number and arrangement of impaction stages (and the number of through holes on each plate) to the specific flow path involved (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 2, Narayanakumar disclose that the baffle plate assembly (204) includes the first baffle plate and a second baffle plate (334), each of which is “generally rectangular in shape” and has a length, breadth and thickness, i.e. each baffle plate is a flat plate (fig. 4; col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 10). Each baffle plate (334) defines a plurality of through holes (338) therein, regularly interspersed along the length of the plate (figs. 4-5; col. 7, lines 18-20; col. 8, lines 10-15).
Ding discloses that the first baffle plates (31/41) and second baffle plate (32/42) of each separation structure are flat plates each defining multiple through holes of equal diameter, arranged in rows, with adjacent rows offset from one another (claim 2, paragraphs 0006-0007, 0020; figs. 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use baffles comprising a flat plate that define holes as this limitation is present in the combination applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Narayanakumar discloses that the through holes (338) of the first and second baffle plates has a defined length (414) and breath (416), and that these dimensions may vary from hole to hole and plate to plate (figs. 4-5; col. 8 lines 35-67). Narayanakumar’s claim 8 recites: “the first through-hole has a first length, and the second through-hole has a second length, the first length being different than the second length” (col. 10, lines 45-48). Narayanakumar’s claim 9 further recites: “the first through-hole has a first breadth, and the second through-hole has a second breadth, the first breadth being different than the second breadth” (col. 10, lines 48-52).
Narayanakumar further discloses that the through hole breadth is a result effective variable expressly tied to the desired separation performance: “In engine designs with larger oil particle sizes, the breadth (416) of the through-holes may be increased,” and conversely, “as an oil challenge increases, that is, as more oil is required to be separated efficiently, the breadth 408 of the through-holes may be decreased” (col. 9, lines 30-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to size the through holes of the first (upstream) baffle plate larger than those of the second (downstream) baffle plate, because Narayanakumar discloses that larger through holes are appropriate for capturing larger, more readily separated oil droplets, while smaller through holes are appropriate where finer, more efficient separation is required (col. 9, lines 20-45). Optimizing the relative breadth of the first and second baffle’s through-holes in this manner is no more than the routine optimization of a result effective variable already identified by Narayanakumar, achievable through experimentation and yielding the predictable result of improved staged oil separation.
Regarding claim 4, Narayanakumar discloses the number of through holes on the baffles plate is a result effective variable to be tuned for the desired separation performance: “the number of through-holes may be varied (for e.g., increased or decreased) and/or the breadth 408 of the baffle plate may be varied” based on the resultant effect on oil separation (col. 9, lines 30-43). Ding discloses the first and second baffle plate of a separation structure can have a different number of through holes from one another. Ding’s claim 5 recites that “there are 12 through holes on the first baffle plate, the second baffle plate upper through hole number is 11” (fig. 6; paragraph 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reverse which of baffle plate carries the greater number of holes, because both Narayanakumar and Ding confirm that hole count on a given plate is selected based on the oil/gas separation demands of that particular stage in the flow path, rather than dictated on whether the plate is first or second in sequence. Accordingly, assigning fewer holes in the upstream plate and more holes in the downstream plate is simply one of the finite numbers of predictable design choices that a person or ordinary skill would try in the course of tuning a two-stage baffle separator, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the desired separation profile.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Narayanakumar fails to disclose a width of said holes on said first baffle is not less than 0.125 inches the width of said holes on said second baffle is not less than 0.055 inches. However, Ding discloses the baffle plates include multiple through holes having a diameter of 4.0 mm (0.157 inches) (claim 5; paragraphs 0009-0010, 0021), hence, satisfying the dimensional limitations of claims 5 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the perforated baffle plates and corresponding hole dimensions taught by Ding into the ventilation box of Narayanakumar because both references are directed to crankcase ventilation oil separators that remove oil from blow-by gases before returning the gases to the engine intake system. Ding discloses that the arrangement and dimensions of the through hole facilitates blow-by gas flow while improving oil separation efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding in claim 1, discloses a ventilation box including a housing defining first and second chambers, first and second baffles, and corresponding openings for separating oil from crankcase gases in an internal combustion Engine. The additional limitation of claim 9 merely specifies the particular engine platform with which the ventilation box is configured to interface. The instant specification identifies the General Motors L5P Duramax engine only as one exemplary embodiment of the engine in which the ventilation box may be installed (paragraph 0020). The specification further explains that engine (50) generally includes a crankcase, cylinder head, air intake system, and turbocharger, but does not describe any unique structural features of the claimed ventilation box that distinguish it from the ventilation box of claim 1 by virtue of being configured for the L5O Duramax engine. Rather, the specification identifies the L5P Duramax engine as one suitable engine application. Accordingly, the recitation of the General Motors L5P Duramax engine merely identifies a particular intended engine platform for the otherwise known ventilation box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the ventilation box taught by Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding, for installation on a General Motors L5P Duramax engine because adapting a known crankcase ventilation separator for installation on a particular commercially available engine platform would have constituted a routine design choice involving selection or modification of mounting features and interface geometry to correspond to existing cylinder head openings and crankcase ventilation connections of the selected engine.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanakumar and Ding, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Watanabe U.S. Pub. No. 6035836 A, March 14, 2000 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 7, Narayanakumar fails to disclose that the said second baffle is oriented horizontally and separates said first and second chambers into two vertically distinct portions. However, Watanabe discloses a crankcase ventilation (lubricant/vapor) separator mounted on the exterior of a cam cover, wherein the separator includes generally horizontal partition plates/baffles (160) extending across the separator housing (col. 8, lines 8-23). As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the horizontal partition plates divide the separator housing into vertically stacked compartments through which crankcase gases are directed in a tortuous flow path before exiting the separator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation box of Narayanakumar, as already modified by Ding, by orienting the second baffle horizontally as taught by Watanabe so that the first and second chambers are divided into vertically distinct portions. Watanabe teaches a labyrinth separator in which a generally horizontal baffle divides the separator housing into vertically arranged regions while directing crankcase gases through a tortuous flow path and permitting separated lubricant to drain through a lower opening back into the cam chamber. Incorporating this known baffle orientation into the ventilation box of Narayanakumar would have predictably improved staged oil separation within a compact crankcase ventilation housing.
Regarding claim 8, Narayanakumar fails to disclose that the said second opening is positioned in a lower portion of said chamber, and wherein said third opening is positioned in an upper portion of said chamber. However, Watanabe discloses positioning the flow openings at different vertical elevations within the separator housing. Figures 6 and 7 illustrates a separator (146) also includes a lower opening (162) through which lubricant, separated from the ventilation gases by the baffle (160), drains from the vapor chamber S into the cam chamber C (col. 8, lines 8-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation box of Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding, by positioning the seconding opening in the lower portion of the first chamber and the third opening in the upper portion of the second chamber as taught by Watanabe. Watanabe teaches that vertically separating the lower return opening from the upper gas outlet provides separate flow paths for separated lubricant from the crankcase gases within a crankcase ventilation separator (col. 8, lines 8-23).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanakumar et al. U.S. Pub. No. 8011338 B2, September 06, 2011 (hereinafter “Narayanakumar”) in view of Ding CN 201507335 U, June 16, 2010 (hereinafter “Ding”) in further view of Lentz et al. U.S. Pub. No. 3290869 A, December 13, 1966 (hereinafter “Lentz”).
Regarding claim 10, Narayanakumar discloses an oil separator (201) for an internal combustion engine (10) comprising a crankcase (68), a cylinder head (94), and an air intake system (fig. 2; intake manifold 44; col. 3 lines 15-30). The oil separator is mounted on and supported by the cylinder head and comprises an upper cam cover (202) and lower baffle plate assembly (204), which together define an oil separation chamber (206) (figs. 2-3; col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 5; col. 5, lines 1-26). Narayanakumar discloses that blow-by gases pass from the crankcase through internal passages in the cylinder head into the oil separation chamber through a PCV inlet (69), transverse the separator, and exit through PCV outlet (230) to the engine intake system (figs. 2-3; col. 5, lines 20-48). Narayanakumar further discloses a plurality of stationary baffles (208) positioned within the separator chamber to create a tortuous flow path for separating oil from crankcase gases before discharge to the intake (figs. 3-5; col. 2, lines 60-65). Narayanakumar discloses that a PCV pipe connection 230 may connect to a compressor inlet tube of the turbocharger, which in turn transfers blowby gas and air to the intake manifold (col. 6, lines 45-50). Claim 3 of Narayanakumar expressly claims this configuration on “gasoline-fueled turbocharged two-bank direct injected engine,” confirming the disclosed engine includes a turbo charger and air intake system as recited in the preamble of claim 1 (col. 10, lines 18-20).
Narayanakumar discloses that the cam cover (202) is mounted on and substantially covers the cylinder head (94), sealed by a perimeter gasket along the flange (218), such that the cam cover housing is configured to cover the passage/aperture in the cylinder head through which blow-by gases enter (fig. 3; col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 5). The lower baffle plate assembly (204) includes a plurality of baffles (208) positioned between the cam cover and the cylinder head, each baffle comprising a first baffle plate and a second baffle plate (334) arranged in series within the oil separation chamber (figs. 3-5; col. 6 line 60 – col.7, line 20). Each baffle plate defines a plurality of through holes (338), and the blow-by gas is forced through the through-holes of the first and second baffle plates in sequence, undergoing multiple impactions against the plates before the separated gas exits to the intake system (col. 7, lines 39-56).
However, as discussed in claim 1, Narayanakumar fails to disclose that the ventilation box housing defines a first chamber and a second chamber, nor a first opening and a second opening that each provide access to the first chamber together with a third opening that provides access to the second chamber in the particular arrangement recited.
Ding discloses a crank case oil-gas separation structure mounted between an oil baffle plate (2) and a camshaft cover housing (1), in which the housing defines two-separated oil-gas flow paths (chambers), each provided with its own pair of staggered baffle plates (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). The oil baffle plates define crescent -shaped oil-gas entry opening (21, 22), one for each flow path/chamber (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). The first flow path (first chamber) additionally communicates with a pair of oil-return openings (5), positioned at opposite ends of the oil baffle plate, providing a second point of access to that same chamber, while its downstream end (6) connects to the engine’s air filter (figs. 2-4; paragraph 0021-0022). The second, separate flow path (second chamber) communicates through its own opening at downstream end (7) to a PCV valve leading to the intake manifold (paragraph 0020; figs. 1-4). Within each chamber, a first baffle plate (31/41) and a second baffle plate (32/42), each defining multiple through-holes, are positioned in series and staggered relative to one another (paragraphs 0020, 0023; figs. 5-6).
Claim 10 further recites a kit for replacing original equipment on an engine, wherein the engine includes an engine block, crankcase, at least one cylinder head, an air intake system, and a turbocharger, and wherein the original equipment couples to two openings on one cylinder head leading respectively to the engine block and crankcases.
Lentz discloses a crankcase ventilation adapter kit (col. 2, lines 47-49) for installation on existing internal combustion engines. The adapter kit includes a breather cap (16), flexible hoses (50, 52), and adapter tube (54), and a combination condensate/fire trap (56), and is specifically intended to replace or adapt original crankcase ventilation equipment on existing engines (col. 2, lines 58-68). Lentz further discloses that the adapter tube (54) has opposite ends, one end being configured to be secured within an existing engine passage communicating with the crankcase while the opposite end connects to the ventilation components of the kit (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 4-28). The inlet bushing and fastening arrangement are expressly described as being adaptable to different engine makes and models so that an adapter kit may be provided for a particular vehicle or engine configuration (figs. 4-6; col. 4, lines 53-75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adapter-kit features of Lentz into the improved oil separator assembly of Narayanakumar as modified by Ding because Lentz expressly discloses retrofitting existing engines with replacement crankcase ventilation components using adapter tubes and standardized mounting interfaces. A skilled artisan would have recognized that providing the improve dual-chamber separation of Narayanakumar and Ding as a retrofit kit for existing engines merely adapts known separator design into a known installation format for replacement of original equipment, yielding the predictable result of improved crankcase oil separation while allowing installation on existing production engine without redesign of engine architecture.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanakumar, Ding, and Lentz, as applied to claim 10, in further view of Watanabe et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6035836 A, March 14, 2000 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe disclose an engine lubrication and crankcase ventilation assembly including and oil fill neck (164) having a removable cap (166) mounted on the upper end of the fill neck (col. 8, lines 22-32; figs. 2, 5, 6). Watanabe explains that the removable cap permits lubricant to be added through the fill neck while sealing the lubrication system during normal engine operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the retrofit kit of Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding and Lentz, by providing the fill neck with the removable cap taught by Watanabe. Watanabe discloses that a removable cap allows convenient access to the fill neck for routine engine servicing while maintaining a sealed crankcase ventilation system during operation (col. 8, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 12, Narayanakumar disclose that the baffle plate assembly (204) includes the first baffle plate and a second baffle plate (334), each of which is “generally rectangular in shape” and has a length, breadth and thickness, i.e. each baffle plate is a flat plate (fig. 4; col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 10). Each baffle plate (334) defines a plurality of through holes (338) therein, regularly interspersed along the length of the plate (figs. 4-5; col. 7, lines 18-20; col. 8, lines 10-15).
Ding discloses that the first baffle plates (31/41) and second baffle plate (32/42) of each separation structure are flat plates each defining multiple through holes of equal diameter, arranged in rows, with adjacent rows offset from one another (claim 2, paragraphs 0006-0007, 0020; figs. 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use baffles comprising a flat plate that define holes as this limitation is present in the combination applied in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Narayanakumar fails to disclose that the said second opening is positioned in a lower portion of said chamber, and wherein said third opening is positioned in an upper portion of said chamber. However, Watanabe discloses positioning the flow openings at different vertical elevations within the separator housing. Figures 6 and 7 illustrates a separator (146) also includes a lower opening (162) through which lubricant, separated from the ventilation gases by the baffle (160), drains from the vapor chamber S into the cam chamber C (col. 8, lines 8-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation box of Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding, by positioning the seconding opening in the lower portion of the first chamber and the third opening in the upper portion of the second chamber as taught by Watanabe. Watanabe teaches that vertically separating the lower return opening from the upper gas outlet provides separate flow paths for separated lubricant from the crankcase gases within a crankcase ventilation separator (col. 8, lines 8-23).
Regarding claim 14, Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding in claim 1, discloses a ventilation box including a housing defining first and second chambers, first and second baffles, and corresponding openings for separating oil from crankcase gases in an internal combustion Engine. The additional limitation of claim 9 merely specifies the particular engine platform with which the ventilation box is configured to interface. The instant specification identifies the General Motors L5P Duramax engine only as one exemplary embodiment of the engine in which the ventilation box may be installed (paragraph 0020). The specification further explains that engine (50) generally includes a crankcase, cylinder head, air intake system, and turbocharger, but does not describe any unique structural features of the claimed ventilation box that distinguish it from the ventilation box of claim 10 by virtue of being configured for the L5O Duramax engine. Rather, the specification identifies the L5P Duramax engine as one suitable engine application. Accordingly, the recitation of the General Motors L5P Duramax engine merely identifies a particular intended engine platform for the otherwise known ventilation box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the ventilation box taught by Narayanakumar, as modified by Ding, for installation on a General Motors L5P Duramax engine because adapting a known crankcase ventilation separator for installation on a particular commercially available engine platform would have constituted a routine design choice involving selection or modification of mounting features and interface geometry to correspond to existing cylinder head openings and crankcase ventilation connections of the selected engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights